Reading your email..

[TonyRPH]

All very well capturing all the traffic - but the processing must surely be automated to a large extent.

I'm sure there's only a few people who can answer these questions with any authority, Snowden apparently being one of the few.

The sheer volume of data they must be capturing just makes the mind boggle really.

[Art0ir]

TonyRPH said:

All very well capturing all the traffic - but the processing must surely be automated to a large extent.

I'm sure there's only a few people who can answer these questions with any authority, Snowden apparently being one of the few.

The sheer volume of data they must be capturing just makes the mind boggle really.

That'll be why they've spent $Billions on data centres then?

Snowden stated that analysts could access the data of any citizen at any time.

Wiliam Binney (who designed the precursor software) said the same. Your entire life could be mapped.

[TonyRPH]

Art0ir said:

That'll be why they've spent $Billions on data centres then?

Snowden stated that analysts could access the data of any citizen at any time.

Wiliam Binney (who designed the precursor software) said the same. Your entire life could be mapped.

If "they" were watching in as much detail as we're led to believe, then I would have thought that people looking at child porn etc. etc. would be caught immediately, but this doesn't seem to happen does it?

If all our data is as readily accessible as they'd have us believe - then surely all cybercrime would be nipped in the bud within days...

[Art0ir]

TonyRPH said:

Art0ir said:

That'll be why they've spent $Billions on data centres then?

Snowden stated that analysts could access the data of any citizen at any time.

Wiliam Binney (who designed the precursor software) said the same. Your entire life could be mapped.

If "they" were watching in as much detail as we're led to believe, then I would have thought that people looking at child porn etc. etc. would be caught immediately, but this doesn't seem to happen does it?

If all our data is as readily accessible as they'd have us believe - then surely all cybercrime would be nipped in the bud within days...

Well that depends what their priorities are.

Are you suggesting that they've accidentally on purpose leaked these supposed capabilities that they don't really have?

Seriously, listen to William Binney's interviews. The journalist that broke his story was subject to harassment, flight embargoes and enhanced "monitoring".

[0000]

Well, no. Just capturing encrypted data for three days isn't going to find child porn if it doesn't get sent to an upstream system. Child porn's only at the very edge of their remit anyway.

[TonyRPH]

Art0ir said:

Well that depends what their priorities are.

Are you suggesting that they've accidentally on purpose leaked these supposed capabilities that they don't really have?

Seriously, listen to William Binney's interviews. The journalist that broke his story was subject to harassment, flight embargoes and enhanced "monitoring".

I'm not suggesting anything.

If you read my initial post on this subject...

TonyRPH said:

<snip>
If all this data is actually being captured and scanned - it still seems inconceivable (to me anyway) that it's being directed and stored in a single location. (1)

This all suggests massive amounts of duplication.

Which does make me wonder if the scanning is really well targeted? (2)
<snip>

In point (1) - so it is now known (to me) that the data is indeed captured / stored in multiple locations.

In point (2) - I suggested that indeed the scanning was quite targeted - which addresses your point - "Well that depends what their priorities are."

0000 said:

Well, no. Just capturing encrypted data for three days isn't going to find child porn if it doesn't get sent to an upstream system. Child porn's only at the very edge of their remit anyway.

They're not capturing for three days, but rather have the ability to store the captured traffic for three days.

Guardian article said:

Right now, the system is capable of saving three days' worth of traffic, but that will be optimised.

And as I stated above - I'm guessing the scanning is quite targeted, and hence maybe child porn is not at the top of the list.

However - I would have expected child porn to be near the top of the list, below terrorism.

[anonymous-user]

jshell said:

Have a look at how they caught Pablo Escobar all those years ago and then extrapolate the technology up to now. That may give a pointer towards current abilities.

Pablo Escobar was caught by old school analogue radio direction finding. Basically a team of guys wandering about or driving about with radio scanners and handheld directional antennas listening to his mobile phone calls from where he was hiding, until the signal was strong enough to pinpoint his location.

With respect, I'm not sure how a bloke wandering about with an antenna and headphones until he found a nearby drug baron chatting on his phone is similar in any way to collecting the entire contents of the Internet for analysis?

[0000]

TonyRPH said:

0000 said:

Well, no. Just capturing encrypted data for three days isn't going to find child porn if it doesn't get sent to an upstream system. Child porn's only at the very edge of their remit anyway.

They're not capturing for three days, but rather have the ability to store the captured traffic for three days.

What, you mean they're not setting up all the infrastructure around the world, then putting it away after three days?

The point stands, even if you want to quibble on the wording.

[TonyRPH]

0000 said:

TonyRPH said:

0000 said:

Well, no. Just capturing encrypted data for three days isn't going to find child porn if it doesn't get sent to an upstream system. Child porn's only at the very edge of their remit anyway.

They're not capturing for three days, but rather have the ability to store the captured traffic for three days.

What, you mean they're not setting up all the infrastructure around the world, then putting it away after three days?

The point stands, even if you want to quibble on the wording.

Wording aside - you said that the system is not going to find child porn if not sent to an upstream system...

But in the many statements being made about this system, it is being claimed that it captures all traffic.

But now you're suggesting that it doesn't actually capture all the traffic after all?

0000 said:

What, you mean they're not setting up all the infrastructure around the world, then putting it away after three days?

What? Where did I say that???

The Guardian article stated that captures could currently be stored for three days, suggesting there are limitations on their storage ability (no surprise).

Edited by TonyRPH on Monday 8th July 10:52

[0000]

No?

[TonyRPH]

As per usual 0000, interacting in any topic with you just degenerates into nothing but hot air.

I'm out.

[0000]

[Art0ir]

TonyRPH said:

And as I stated above - I'm guessing the scanning is quite targeted, and hence maybe child porn is not at the top of the list.

However - I would have expected child porn to be near the top of the list, below terrorism.

A massive, massive majority of web traffic is Bittorrent data and Netflix/Youtube/Spotify, etc. Filter those two out and they would be left with real stuff.

If I was in charge of it, I would only be intercepting VOIP and IM traffic. The rest could be harvested from Google's servers for example.

You may be disappointed to find that child protection probably wouldn't come very high on their list of priorities. The pedophile rings within the Afghan security forces that go unmentioned are a perfect example of that...

[0000]

Art0ir said:

A massive, massive majority of web traffic is Bittorrent data and Netflix/Youtube/Spotify, etc. Filter those two out and they would be left with real stuff.

Filter anything out at intercept time and you risk it being used. Hiding data within Youtube videos perhaps if you'd leave those out. Making a short cache of everything then allows upstream systems to query/filter/retrieve/whatever as appropriate with some contingency if you find a person of interest has switched from Facebook IM to Youtube videos.

[Art0ir]

0000 said:

Filter anything out at intercept time and you risk it being used. Hiding data within Youtube videos perhaps if you'd leave those out. Making a short cache of everything then allows upstream systems to query/filter/retrieve/whatever as appropriate with some contingency if you find a person of interest has switched from Facebook IM to Youtube videos.

Well the leaks show that GCHQ filters Bittorrent data our at "source" from fiber lines.

[0000]

Have you got a link for that?

[Art0ir]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cabl...

Article said:

The processing centres apply a series of sophisticated computer programmes in order to filter the material through what is known as MVR – massive volume reduction. The first filter immediately rejects high-volume, low-value traffic, such as peer-to-peer downloads, which reduces the volume by about 30%

[TonyRPH]

Thanks for the link - it answered a few questions for me, and confirmed some of the things I had suspected too.

[Art0ir]

A google of William Binney will reveal a lot more on the NSA side of things.

[0000]

That link refers to a different system. Similar patterns will be repeated over and over.